General > General Technical Chat
Farewell to the DSLR camera
nightfire:
--- Quote from: mawyatt on July 15, 2022, 01:07:15 pm ---The colors must be spot on and the contrast as one would see if present, very demanding without any post processing, and the old Nikon 24-70 F2.8 and D800 were good enough at the time.
--- End quote ---
That was a top-of-the-line combo back then, if you wanted better technical quality, you had to go for medium format!
AndyBeez:
--- Quote from: bd139 on July 15, 2022, 12:43:15 pm ---I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead ;)
--- End quote ---
Make that petabytes for some snappers. Also, in the future, jpeg readers will still exist. Viewing granddad's raw files might not be possible. Even if you wanted to view 10,000 high dynamic range photos of ducks on a pond,
Modern Jpeg algos are very good; given a good piece of glass and low ISO, they will match any 35mm slide in dynamic range - even Fuji RDP (which was the best film ever). Yes there are 'artefacts' at 16x12 inches, but who the hell prints anything over A4 - or even prints?
Puke mode = true ; RAW is for professional photographers who have a team of colorists who have the need and resources to match every pixel to a target gamut. Otherwise it is used extensively by (male) photographic club poseurs who talk loudly about "mastering on RAW" whilst dismissing cracking images taken on smart phones.
Zucca:
In my research about the Canon R6, I discovered this format
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format
seems to be a successor for the jpeg format...
:popcorn:
bd139:
My phone shoots HEIC by default...
bd139:
--- Quote from: AndyBeez on July 15, 2022, 02:44:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: bd139 on July 15, 2022, 12:43:15 pm ---I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead ;)
--- End quote ---
Make that petabytes for some snappers. Also, in the future, jpeg readers will still exist. Viewing granddad's raw files might not be possible. Even if you wanted to view 10,000 high dynamic range photos of ducks on a pond,
Modern Jpeg algos are very good; given a good piece of glass and low ISO, they will match any 35mm slide in dynamic range - even Fuji RDP (which was the best film ever). Yes there are 'artefacts' at 16x12 inches, but who the hell prints anything over A4 - or even prints?
Puke mode = true ; RAW is for professional photographers who have a team of colorists who have the need and resources to match every pixel to a target gamut. Otherwise it is used extensively by (male) photographic club poseurs who talk loudly about "mastering on RAW" whilst dismissing cracking images taken on smart phones.
--- End quote ---
That's a good point about RAW files. The NEF format is not an open standard with an open specification for example. Every spec and open source codec out there is reverse engineered. JPEG is open.
Agree with JPEG quality. It's fine :)
I was actually talking to an actual professional photographer the other week. He does event stuff for press at Wimbledon, with a D850. He shoots JPEG because turnaround is the important thing for them. It takes less time to shift that to the agency so he can get cash.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version